62 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,230 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (1968) Cited 38,124 times 73 Legal Analyses
Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop
Ornelas v. United States
517 U.S. 690 (1996) Cited 6,536 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellate courts should review reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations de novo
Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins
560 U.S. 370 (2010) Cited 2,846 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts can "deny writs of habeas corpus under § 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA deference applies"
Colorado v. Connelly
479 U.S. 157 (1986) Cited 4,816 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government bears the burden of proving the validity of a Miranda waiver by a preponderance of the evidence
United States v. Cortez
449 U.S. 411 (1981) Cited 6,361 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that reasonable suspicion exists where an officer has "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity"
Rhode Island v. Innis
446 U.S. 291 (1980) Cited 6,126 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred
Missouri v. Seibert
542 U.S. 600 (2004) Cited 1,989 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[s]trategists dedicated to draining the substance out of" constitutional protections cannot accomplish by planning around these protections because it "effectively threatens to thwart [their] purpose"
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,284 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
Moran v. Burbine
475 U.S. 412 (1986) Cited 4,084 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted

The People, Appellant,v.Eugene Polhill, Respondent.

62 Cited authorities

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop

Holding that appellate courts should review reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations de novo

Holding that federal courts can "deny writs of habeas corpus under § 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA deference applies"

Holding that the government bears the burden of proving the validity of a Miranda waiver by a preponderance of the evidence

Holding that reasonable suspicion exists where an officer has "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity"

Holding that a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred

Holding that "[s]trategists dedicated to draining the substance out of" constitutional protections cannot accomplish by planning around these protections because it "effectively threatens to thwart [their] purpose"

Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted